A wide variety of pet training and restraining devices are found in the art. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 6,412,442 to Bean; U.S. Pat. No. 6,164,245 to Johnson; U.S. Pat. No. 229,691 to Gerard; U.S. Pat. No. 207,963 to Hallner and Lindquist; U.S. Pat. No. 160,134 to Wilson; U.S. Pat. No. 843,543 to Matsumoto; U.S. Pat. No. 800,260 to Bellstedt are all illustrative of prior art. While these units may be suitable for the purposes for which they were designed, they would not be suitable for the purposes of the present invention. Several types of animal restraints have been proposed and they can be grouped into four categories. First there is prior art such as Des 365177 to Farrell which requires that one end of the connecting cable be able to be fixed in one place, such as to a stake or post. Secondly, there is prior art such as U.S. Pat. No. 160,134 to Wilson that requires that a fence or wire is set up with specific dimensions in order for the main component to function. The third category of prior art is demonstrated by U.S. Pat. No. 843,543 to Matsumoto. This third category uses a weight on the end of the cable, but the weight is designed in such a way as to make the device immovable by the animal, after being deployed. The fourth category of prior art is exemplified by U.S. Pat. No. 6,412,442 to Bean that uses the Animal's/retrainee's own weight as the anchor for the device. Again, this fourth category is not intended to be moveable by the animal after it is deployed. A deeper look at more prior art for each category is included below.
As mentioned above, the first category of restraints in the prior art have an immovable, stationary end. These restrict the animals overall movement and enable tangling in objects within the reach of the cabling. Several devices with a fixed end have been proposed—for example, U.S. Pat. No. 427,012 to Reed; Des 365177 to Farrell; DE3510668 Al to Berger; U.S. Pat. No. 5,785,007 to Sauber et al; U.S. Pat. No. 6,435,137 B1 to Hourihan. These devices have the cable fixed to a permanent object on one end, thus restricting the animals overall movement and enabling tangling in objects within the reach of the cable. Further, these devices may be portable to the location of use, but once deployed for use, are intended to remain stationary. This differs from the present invention, Cat Can't Jump, in that Cat Can't Jump is intended to allow the restrained pet movement in all horizontal directions with out a radial distance boundary from an initial fixed point. This difference is highlighted in U.S. Pat. No. 427,012 to Reed, where Reed teaches that his “Hitching Post” can be “located on the surface of the ground or entirely embedded within the earth”. Reed's device was intended to be immobile, once deployed. Des 365177 to Farrell teaches of an anchor to secure the animal to a single point. DE3510668 A1 to Berger is a German language patent that shows clear intent for the sow-restraining device to be attached to a stake or other permanently affixed location. In U.S. Pat. No. 5,785,007 to Sauber et al, Sauber teaches of a device to connect an animal to a fixed point within a vehicle for transportation. Sauber's device is not intended for, and cannot be used for, allowing free horizontal movement without a device set radius. U.S. Pat. No. 6,435,137 B1 to Hourihan teaches of a restraint device for embedding in the lawn. Once deployed, Hourihan's device is immovable by the animal.
Devices comprising the second category of prior art feature weights on a connector with a specific enclosure. These devices require a separate structure of fencing or wires in order to function and limit the animal's horizontal movements. Several devices of this nature have been proposed as well—for example, U.S. Pat. No. 160,134 to Wilson; and U.S. Pat. No 229,691 to Gerard. This second category is exemplified by U.S. Pat. No. 160,134 to Wilson. Wilson teaches of a device with a piece of equipment pulled on a connector by the restrained animal that catches on a pre-strung wire providing a set boundary for the animal. This device is only for use out doors and can only be deployed for use after the wire is first in place. U.S. Pat. No. 229,691 to Gerard also uses a connected weight and a low strung wire fence. Gerard teaches of a weight attached to the bridle of a horse that the horse is able to pull but is intended to stay on the ground. To achieve this Gerard demonstrates a weight heavy enough not to leave the ground and a cable that is significantly longer than the length or height of the horse. These devices in the second category differ from the present invention, Cat Can't Jump, in many ways. Firstly, and mainly, the present invention does not require any construction of a retaining wire or fence. Further, with out the pre-existing retaining wire, Cat Can't Jump does not require that the trailing weight get caught on anything in order to perform its function. Indeed, it is designed not to snag on other features. Gerard, for example, requires a cable longer than the length of the animal so that it cannot lift the weight, while Cat Can't Jump uses a cable shorter than the length of the cat so that the weight will leave the ground when it tries to stand or jump. Cat Can't Jump can be used inside of homes or other buildings while prior art of this category is strictly for use outdoors. Cat Can't Jump deters vertical motion by disturbing the cat's balance after the front paws leave the ground, but doesn't limit horizontal movement.
Devices comprising the third category of prior art for consideration feature weights and no specific enclosure. However, it will be demonstrated that these were intended to be immobile after deployment. Several devices of this nature have been proposed as well—for example, U.S. Pat. No. 843,543 to Matsumoto; U.S. Pat. No. 704,730 to Zierleyn; U.S. Pat. No. 753,835 to Albee; U.S. Pat. No. 1,738,581 to Hodgson; U.S. Pat. No. 5,870,974 to Johnson; U.S. Pat. No. 6,536,376 to Brown; U.S. Pat. No. 6,578,528 B1 to Brown and U.S. Pat. No. 5,456,214 to Quilling. These devices are designed to substitute for fixed end restraints for instances where a suitable stationary object isn't present. That is, these devices are portable to the location of use, but once a unit is deployed for use, it is intended to remain stationary. This differs from Cat Can't Jump in that Cat Can't Jump is intended to allow the pet movement in all horizontal directions with out a radial distance boundary from an initial fixed point. This difference is highlighted in U.S. Pat. No. 843,543 to Matsumoto where, on line 10 of the application, Matsumoto states that the hitching weight is “to keep them at a given place”. U.S. Pat. No. 704,730 to Zierleyn teaches of a hitching weight, with rubber casing to deaden the sound of dropping it onto a curb. As Zierleyn teaches of an embodiment of a hitching weight, it is by definition intended for stationary use, once deployed. Zierleyn is to be used to keep the animal at a curbside. U.S. Pat. No. 753,835 to Albee is a “Holder for Hitching Weights”. Albee teaches of a device to be used to secure the hitching weight for transportation inside a vehicle. In U.S. Pat. No. 1,738,581 to Hodgson, Hodgson teaches that the “Child's Tether” would be “sufficiently heavy not to be pulled about”, in lines 9 through 10. In U.S. Pat. No. 5,870,974, Johnson teaches of a device to replace stakes in the ground as a central point for connecting and restraining an animal. In Line 33 of Section 1, Johnson's states that the “Animal Anchor” may be “easily moved from one location to another”. However, this refers to re-deploying the device, not its movement after deployed. Further, in the abstract Johnson teaches that the weight of the device is distributed to prevent it from tipping by the animal. Johnson's device described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,870.974 is not intended to be moveable by the animal. U.S. Pat. No. 6,536,376 B2, Publication Number U.S. 2002/0117119A1 and U.S. Pat. No. 6,578,528 B1 are all issued to the same person, Brown. U.S. Pat. No. 6,536,376 B2, Publication Number US 2002/0117119A1 and U.S. Pat. No. 6,578,528 B1 teach of essentially the same device with slightly different embodiments. The difference between these three and Cat Can't Jump is highlighted in U.S. Pat. No. 6,536,376 B2 where the device is referred to as a “fixed platform” on many occasions. Brown teaches of a device that is transportable and applicable in many settings, but is always intended to remain immobile after deployment. U.S. Pat. No. 5,456,214 to Quilling teaches of “Tether Balls and Leash for Tether Pets”. Quilling describes the device as an anchor many times. Specifically, Quilling states in Column 5, Lines 25 through 26“drop the device down wherever you want the pet to remain”. In this regard the present invention substantially departs from the conventional concepts and designs of the prior art. Cat Can't Jump will not require that the pet remain in one location and is, indeed, developed with the intention that the pet can remain mobile.
Devices comprising the fourth category of prior art for consideration feature bases designed such that the weight for securing the connection point is provided by the animal being restrained. As with the first and third categories differentiated above, the base of the device is intended to remain stationary, once deployed. Several devices of this nature have been proposed—for example, U.S. Pat. No. 6,412,442 to Bean, which uses the animal's/retrainee's own weight as the anchor for the device. Bean teaches of a cable attached to the center of a portable platform. Since the cable is shorter than the size of the platform, the animal cannot move past the boundary of the platform and thus its weight remains on the platform keeping the platform from moving from it's deployed location. U.S. Pat No. 5,894,748 and U.S. Pat. No. 6,499,436 B1 were both issued to Capperrune. Both of the Capperrune devices use the animals weight as the method of weighing down the base for containing the animal. Thus, not only is the device immobile, but also the distance the animal may roam is greatly limited by the area of the base used. Again, this fourth category is intended to be immoveable by the animal after it is deployed. The present invention, Cat Can't Jump, is designed only to deter vertical motion by disturbing the cat's balance once its paws leave the ground. Cat Can't Jump was developed with the intention that the pet can remain mobile.
Taking all of this information into account, none of the prior art provides the animal with the same abilities of movement while deterring vertical movements as does the current invention, Cat Can't Jump.